Rama Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62340 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-250 Year-2017 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran ====================================================== RAMA YADAV, Son of Sri Ramlal Yadav, Resident of Village- Kharkatwa Murli, P.S.- Shikarpur, District- West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma- Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1-A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 28-05-2020 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through video conferencing.
Petitioner is languishing in jail custody since 10.10.2017 and seeks bail in connection with Shikarpur P. S. Case No.250 of 2017, initially, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C., but after investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Section 304-B/ 34 of the I.P.C.
Petitioner is husband of the deceased and the informant claimed that when she reached at the house of the deceased, the deceased disclosed that it was petitioner, who lit fire on her body.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62340 of 2019(8) dt.28-05-2020 2/2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that deceased was caught in fire accidentally while she was cooking meal. He further submits that the petitioner is in jail custody since long, but up-till-now trial could not be concluded. The report sent by the learned trial Court goes to show that up-till-now not a single prosecution witness could be examined.
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions of the parties, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected. However, if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within nine months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) vikash/- U T